Digital Services
Have news alerts sent to your mobile device or email, read the e-Edition, sign up for daily newsletters, activate your all access, enter contests, take quizzes, download our mobile apps and see the latest e-circulars.

Contact Us
See department contacts, frequently asked questions, request customer service support, submit a photo or place an ad.

Sugarloaf chief questions officer's extra pay

Article Tools

Sugarloaf police Chief Josh Winters didn't know what to think when he discovered the township paid one of his officers above his regular salary earlier this year.

Was it legitimate, he wondered, or was something shady going on?

Winters asked the township supervisors for an explanation, but didn't get any answers why the full-time officer was receiving an extra $176 every two weeks, he said.

"I was stonewalled. They gave me no information," Winters said.

So, he filed a request for the officers' pay records under the Right-to-Know law. The township asked for an additional 30 days under the law to produce the documents, citing a legal review, which further raised his suspicions, Winters said.

While he waited, one supervisor told him there was a confidential agreement with the officer, but wouldn't elaborate, he said. Another supervisor told him the officer threatened to sue and the township agreed to the additional pay to avoid a lawsuit, Winters said.

A third supervisor, Rick Weaver, didn't know about the additional pay and also started to look into the matter, he said.

"From what I could see this was true," he said. "There was more money than regular pay. I saw in the pay records, it was marked as longevity pay."

Longevity pay is salary or wages based on seniority or length of service with an organization.

Weaver turned to the township solicitor, James Schneider, who told him he couldn't find a written agreement regarding the additional pay, or anything in the supervisors' minutes approving it, he said.

Officer Tom Brown, who had taken a voluntary furlough in 2008, received about $4,600 in additional pay since returning to work full-time in May, Winters said.

"I cannot come up with any justification for it," he said. "I cannot come up with â¦ any logical reason why he is entitled to the pay or that the supervisors are authorized to do so. I reported it to the appropriate agencies."

Luzerne County District Attorney Stefanie Salavantis confirmed that her office is involved, and that she plans to review the information and speak with the parties involved to determine if a criminal investigation is warranted.

Winters does not know if the matter is criminal, he said, but it may be unethical.

Supervisor Earl Miller, who serves as secretary/treasurer, said Brown was receiving additional pay, but would not elaborate. He implied that supervisors would be taking further action.

"It is true, but I can't say much about it," he said.

Schneider denied any illegality. The solicitor explained that Brown was represented by counsel and approached the township with a question about money that he may have been owed.

Schneider agreed that he could not find a written agreement regarding the additional pay when asked by Weaver or any record of action by the township in the minutes from the supervisors' meetings.

"That was an oversight," Schneider said, adding that the supervisors will take the appropriate action.

Schneider said he didn't know why Brown returned the money in question to the township, saying he wouldn't have advised him to do so.

"I think he's entitled to this," he said, but added that he hasn't been handling the matter.

Supervisor Jack Wittig also thought Brown was entitled to the additional pay. The township reached an agreement with Brown regarding the money in 2011, he said.

"We didn't approve it at a public meeting. It was an oversight," Wittig said. "Everything was done legally."

He explained that Brown returned the money to the township in the form of a cashier's check, due to the ongoing investigation. He believes the township will return the check when the investigation closes, he said.

Wittig said he could not comment further.

"It's under investigation by the district attorney," he said. "We were told not to talk about it."

Weaver, who did his own investigation, questioned the agreement with Brown.

"I was told it was an confidential agreement. How do you have a confidential agreement with pay?" he asked. "Why was there an agreement made that was confidential? Why wasn't I privy to it?"

Weaver has expressed concerns about not being informed about township business in the past. He acknowledges that he wasn't in office when the agreement was reached, but he did vote to hire Brown full-time last year.

"Mr. Wittig said the confidential agreement was before I got there," Weaver said. "But the payments started when I got there. That ticks me off. Why didn't I know? Why don't I know everything that goes on at a township meeting?"

Like others, Weaver doesn't know if anything illegal took place, but does wonder if the actions were ethical.

kmonitz@standardspeaker.com

We welcome user discussion on our site, under the following guidelines:

To comment you must first create a profile and sign-in with a verified DISQUS account or social network ID. Sign up here.

Comments in violation of the rules will be denied, and repeat violators will be banned. Please help police the community by flagging offensive comments for our moderators to review. By posting a comment, you agree to our full terms and conditions. Click here to read terms and conditions.